Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

I won't comment on fellow-poster Machiaveili, but I will comment about a guy who goes by the name Yummi. Yummi is clearly protecting the police's and prosecutor's interests. I can't recall anything he has found in the police's and prosecution's work that he found lacking, except that they did not charge Amanda with being a prostitute working for Guede her pimp. I remember the posts where Yummi was raising this as a hypothetical but he just couldn't find some factoid to claim that it is true. So he played up the idea that she was prostituting herself to Guede for drugs rather than money. I am surprised the prosecution did not introduce sex for drugs "barter" as a factoid and add a tax avoidance charge.

When Machiavelli called me a liar for saying that he'd once claimed this, he eventually hid behind, "it is compatible with" language. He denied that he'd ever called Rudy Amanda's pimp, but said his sources suggested that Knox had traded sex for Rudy's drugs... not because he knew anything about the two of them, but because it was compatible with life among students/dealers in Perugia.

There is not the most fleeting factoid Machiavelli won't trot out as "compatible with" Knox's guilt, even before demonstrating her guilt. (When asked about that, he either says that he's explained it before and does not want to repeat, or simply assert, "she's obviously guilty, this is what the evidence suggests.." without ever once pointing to suggestive evidence.

But what will Machiavelli say about today?

Judge Nencini threatens to be disciplined for talking to the press. Nencini also suggests that the lay-jurors were confused.... what they saw during 3 months of TV watching in of this notorious case, all suggested that Knox was guilty...

.... and, I ask Machiavelli, why would that be at all "confusing" unless they were hearing the opposite in the courtroom, that the two were innocent?

Did Nencini simply order the lay-jurors that Cassazione had already settled it, by stipulating the return of a guilty verdict?

I'd suggest to Machiavelli that this is a fair rendering of today's developments..... which will obviously need a few more days or weeks to sort through.

But is THIS the prosecution/convicting judiciary that Machiavelli is defending?

 

[anglolawyer]

That's clever, you can have a lawyer, but you can't talk to them?

What a joke!

Kafkaesque.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a reminder to Machiavelli.... who lied, "Knox decided to release a statement," therefore the interrogations were legal.

Not even Mignini believes this. Either Mignini lied to Drew Griffin in his CNN interview in 2010, or Machiavelli is lying.

0’50’’ Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down* [Translator’s note: This seems to imply Mignini was not sleeping at home but instead somewhere on a higher floor at the Questura.] and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.

2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.

So who is lying, Machiavelli? You or Mignini?

 

[anglolawyer]

You don't understand that if the SC had agreed that the 5.45am statement was spontaneous (in law), its contents would have been ruled admissible against her in the murder trial? You don't understand that the very fact that the SC ruled the 5.45am statement inadmissible in the murder trial means -by definition - that they considered that it did not meet the criteria of a "spontaneous declaration"?

You aren't aware that Mignini's sole aim in coercing the 5.45am statement was to get Knox to repeat everything she'd said earlier in the 1.45am statement, since he already knew that there was no chance that the contents of the 1.45am statement would be allowed in evidence on the murder charge, and was therefore trying to make it admissible through the concoction of a "spontaneous declaration" that repeated the same self-incriminating information but this time in a court-admissible fashion? You aren't aware that the SC saw straight through this blatant abuse of process?

I suppose it's true what they say proverbially: there are none so blind as those who will not see.........

Not his sole aim LJ. He got her to implicate, rather than exonerate, Raffaele in the 5.45 version and he improved the part about Lumumba telling her no need to come to work by, er, deleting it.

 

[moodstream]

The idiot Abrams says Rudy was taking a crap in the bathroom next to Meredith's room. Which orifice did he pull that out of?

PS: I don't tweet so somebody else will have to tell him. I saw no point in reading his artlcle past that error.

I noticed that Doug M told Abrams he would send a list of errors to him via email. I don't know how that went. I tried to put my comments up, but I can't see them. I don't know much about twitter so I don't know if that's my own fault or if they have been removed.

Abrams offerred to correct any errors, but so far I see no corrections offerred, even on twitter he does not discuss it anymore. He has moved on. I would like to think he is a man of his word, but I have my doubts at this point.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't know if this has been posted yet:

Talk of Nencini facing disciplinary action:

Amanda Knox's conviction could be QUASHED after judge talked to the media about verdict

Chief judge Alessandro Nencini showed ‘clear evidence of prejudice’

Judge said he believed murder would 'never have happened without her'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vealing-interviews-verdict.html#ixzz2sDMYe4v4

It is impossible to make up this stuff.

Nencini all but admits that the lay jurors were being confused by all the guilter like stuff on TV, as compared to..... what? The guilt-sounding stuff in the courtroom?

Why would THAT scenario be confusing. I bet they were hearing acquitting like stuff in the courtroom, Like the RIS Carabinieiri report on the DNA, but that Nencini all but ordered them to follow the stipulations about guilt from Cassazione.

Nencini implies (to my way of thinking at least) that if Raffaele had testified, it may have gone better for him. What? You mean the evidence could have been countered by Raffaele claiming things?

My bet is that Nencini is saying that if Raffaele had ratted out Knox, he'd have gone free. Anyone else with a differing interpretation of.....

.... Nencini's incredibly prejudical remarks TO THE PRESS, please post them here.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla
That's clever, you can have a lawyer, but you can't talk to them?

What a joke!

Kafkaesque.

All I can think of is the book Catch 22.

 

[acbytesla]

The journalist asking the questions of the State Department press spokeswoman should have been more specific. If I were there I would have asked it this way "Retired FBI agent Steve Moore who investigated the interrogation of Amanda Knox by 12 Italian police officers said that Knox was hit by Italian police in a midnight police interrogation. Is that a factor that the Secretary would consider in evaluating an Italian request for extradition?"

If Hillary runs for president she will of course appear early in grass-roots talks in living rooms and schools in Iowa, New Hampshire, and elsewhere. She will answer questions by ordinary folk, covered by news cameras of course. She should be asked specific questions about this case so that she cannot but get the message that she willl be watched for her response. Maybe Ophra will have Knox on and refer to any support or indifference shown by Hillary. Lots of people will view that kind of discussion.

Well I do know that Hillary knows a lot about this case and has been supportive of Knox. There is a lot a like about Hillary, but I wouldn't count on her running and you never know who's going to win. That is still 3 years off.

This story is going to go on and on and on.

 

[moije2]

Kafkaesque.

No it's ok. Really. Under certain circumstances they can be told to wait for 5 days. Then they can talk to them. It is written in the code and is perfectly legal. We wouldn't want mafiosa Amanda to pull any quick ones, now would we.

 

[Bill Williams]

No it's ok. Really. Under certain circumstances they can be told to wait for 5 days. Then they can talk to them. It is written in the code and is perfectly legal. We wouldn't want mafiosa Amanda to pull any quick ones, now would we.

It's time we admitted that Mignini was justified in applying Mafiosi laws to Amanda. Machiavelli has assured us that Knox and her mother talked regularly to each other in "mafia code".

And what was that "Mafia cone of silence" concept Machiavelli said was causing the whole population of Seattle to refuse to come forward about Knox's April Fool's prank?

Amanda is mafia. Get over it.

 

[Kaosium]

I highly respect Kevin Lowe and normally agree with all his points. Covering for atrocious Italian judicial dishonesty and the people who ignore it is not something I can close my eyes to however. Since I am of Italian ancestry I hardly think it is racial. More like I cant believe anyone can be this stupid to try to pull this one off. And then realizing that they are pulling it off. They are getting away with something so outlandish and yet I'm hearing ........crickets. Evil is prevailing and the good people are doing nothing! Oh well what the hell.

I didn't want to chime in on this as I was hoping it would just go away and I didn't want to contribute to it continuing as this is an icky subject and I understand how it inflames passions, but I'm pretty sure I have an idea of what happened regarding the mitigation for that case. I may get a detail or something wrong, but from a conceptual standpoint here's what that probably means. I'm sure Machiavelli will correct me if I get something wrong!

In Italy the sentences are codified and then adjusted during the process for aggravations and mitigations, the former adding to the sentence, the latter decreasing it. There's nothing unusual about a mitigation, murderers get them, rapists get them, CIA agents they prosecute get them, terrorists probably get them too, just about everyone can get a mitigation based on something or another if they qualify.

So if I understand this correctly what probably happened was the prosecutor successfully convinced the trial judge to deny that mitigation, therefore they were trying to go harder on this guy than was usual. The defense appealed and Cassation determined that the accused was guilty, but legally entitled to a mitigation for a less damaging version of the crime that he'd been denied unlawfully.

In the final analysis it's not unlike a judge here giving a lesser sentence for a crime like this due to extenuating circumstances, that just is determined a different way in Italy and in my view is not one of the failures of the system.

 

[Strozzi]

No it's ok. Really. Under certain circumstances they can be told to wait for 5 days. Then they can talk to them. It is written in the code and is perfectly legal. We wouldn't want mafiosa Amanda to pull any quick ones, now would we.

What is the actual purpose of the 5 day time delay before allowing a special suspect to speak with his attorney? Is there an actual document that the prosecutor must file with the court to evoke ths special delay? If so, did Mignini file it? I recall testimony that he never actually filed it or that it never really was inserted into the court record. When did he file it? Is it a matter of record? If he failed to file it, would that constitute unlawful denial of access to an attorney?

Raffaele was kept in solitary confinement for six months. Was that after being arrested but before being charged, after being charged but before commencement of trial, or was that after being convicted? What was the specific purpose for that? If it was not part of a sentence, was it's purpose to undermine him psychologically for possible further interrogation?

 

[Samson]

Kafkaesque.

No surprise Amanda reads Kafka.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/books/review/amanda-knox-by-the-book.html?_r=0

ETA Kafka not mentioned here

 

[Kaosium]

Not his sole aim LJ. He got her to implicate, rather than exonerate, Raffaele in the 5.45 version and he improved the part about Lumumba telling her no need to come to work by, er, deleting it.

How do you think Raffaele was implicated in the 5:45 statement? The only reference to him is this:

[I am] not sure whether Raffaele was present that evening but I do remember waking up at my boyfriend's house in his bed, and that I returned in the morning to my residence, where I found the door to the apartment open. When I woke up, the morning of November 2, I was in bed with my boyfriend/

Is is the "not sure?" I dunno, after she failed to mention him in the rest of the account I'd say the "not sure" basically means she doesn't know and including that at all makes her whole statement even more dubious. If you were Patrick or Raffaele's defense attorney and you got a chance to attack that statement, wouldn't your mouth be watering? Especially once you knew the same day she said she thought it was unreal and more like a dream and she couldn't be used as testimony, and the next day withdrew it completely?

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy Guede stepped on a wet possible semen stain?

Really? And I wonder how that could happen? Insufficient perhaps because some sloppy crime scene investigators failed to test a probable semen stain found under the dead victims body? Duh. Semen stains that dried with a shoe print found in that stain. This would unquestionably date that stain. And it is a simple matter this test. No cutting or damaging of critical factors found elsewhere on this pillow cover.

This is sloppy or corrupt police work. Mignini was in charge of the investigation. Therefore Mignini is once again responsible for this failure to do his job. Just as it was his failure by not allowing the pathologist to take a simple body temperature. The man was there. He is a well trained actual real doctor ...so not your typical doctor of Italy...like Dr Profasio and Dr Stefanoni. or Dr Guede. Is he a doctor yet? Must be nearly qualified by now. Clowns.

Did the scientific police identify the shoe model that left that shoeprint in the still-damp (putative semen) stain on the pillowcase. Did it match Rudy's known shoe model?

If the police did not identify it, can someone here look at the pillow case image and see if the shoe print in the stain resembles any part of the sole of Rudy's known shoe model?

Hiya Strozzi,
Guess what? I learned something new because of your post,
that shoeprint was identified as belonging to be Rudy Guede's!




Here's some more info and comparison pix, with some text and arrows from me:
From IIP and Perugia Shock.
Links:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html
+
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-05.html

There were a total of five shoe prints found on the pillowcase. The prosecution's expert only found two shoe prints on the pillowcase.

Forensics expert Francesco Vinci identified all five by highlighting the fabric using a process called Crimescope. None of these shoe prints represent a woman's shoe size 37 as stated by the prosecution. The prosecution's expert only found one partial shoe print on the edge of the pillowcase. It was that shoe print that was said to be a woman's shoe. The truth is, there were three partial shoe prints. All three partial shoe prints match the tread pattern on Rudy Guede's shoes. Both the prosecution and defense agree that four of the shoe prints on the pillowcase belong to Rudy Guede. Shoe print number 2, as seen below, is the disputed shoe print. This shoe print was discussed here.

I added this page simply to show all of the shoe prints that were found by Francesco Vinci. I have not included any detailed analysis of these shoe prints because they were not disputed at trial.





From Perugia Shock:


+




From IIP

 

[Nessie]

There are only conflicting accounts among the various ones told by Knox. The other witnesses are actually in agreement (and largely unchallenged even by Knox's account for years).
The lack of recording does not make anything unreliable, because it's a standard, it's normal.

Is her interviews over that night, not recorded, the standard for murder investigations?

 

[anglolawyer]

How do you think Raffaele was implicated in the 5:45 statement? The only reference to him is this:



Is is the "not sure?" I dunno, after she failed to mention him in the rest of the account I'd say the "not sure" basically means she doesn't know and including that at all makes her whole statement even more dubious. If you were Patrick or Raffaele's defense attorney and you got a chance to attack that statement, wouldn't your mouth be watering? Especially once you knew the same day she said she thought it was unreal and more like a dream and she couldn't be used as testimony, and the next day withdrew it completely?

'Implicated' might be too strong a word (although maybe not) but if you compare the two statements you will see that in the first he is home free. She lied to him and went out immediately. That has Raf knowing nothing of the crime and not being present at the scene. In the later version she is no longer lying to him and thinks it possible he was there. How about 'insinuated' as in 'she insinuated he may have been involved too'? Can we agree that?

 

[anglolawyer]

Re: luminol I have a trick question. Did Amanda and/or Raffaele point out to the posties or anyone else Guede's footprints leading along the hallway and out the front door? I hope Mach has a crack at this one but anyone can play. The trick is to figure out why its a trick question.

 

[andreajo]

All I can think of is the book Catch 22.

I had the same thought.

 

[Nessie]

I had regarded Knox's blaming of Lumumba as damning evidence against her. Now I know that happened during the interviews overnight, it shows the Italian police's conduct produced a falsehood, rather than Knox lied and deceived the police. That discredits their interview strategy and technique.